‘We have succeeded at keeping famine at bay, we have not kept suffering at bay’, said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres while briefing members of the UN Security Council on 12 October. Explaining the impediments to an effective response to the risks of famine in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen, and, Guterres named conflict as a root cause of famine.
Guterres is right. In fact, a recent report on the state of the world’s food security—jointly published by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Food Programme (WFP) and World Health Organization (WHO)—puts the number of people affected both by hunger and conflict at 489 million. That is about 60 per cent of the 815 million people suffering worldwide from hunger and malnutrition. The report further details that the connection between conflict and hunger is especially notable ‘where the food security impacts of conflict were compounded by droughts or floods, linked in part to the El Niño phenomenon’. There appears to be a general consensus among UN agencies that conflict, as a root cause of hunger and malnutrition, needs to be addressed. Evidently, this is easier said than done.
Complex conflict, comprehensive peacebuilding
Building peace in post-conflict countries is rarely, if ever, straightforward. International actors often face insurmountable challenges when programming and implementing their projects. In addition to stopping violence, the aim of their work is to set states and societies on a peaceful path. Yet, the food-security situation clearly shows that the indirect, long-term effects of war further exaggerate this challenge. Many of these challenges relate to political and social aspects of post-war countries, such as human rights abuses, reconciliation and justice, as well as economic recovery and public health. Environmental and climate change expose post-conflict states further to new risks, exaggerating the human costs of war long after active combat has ceased.
The Lake Chad Basin is sadly one of the key examples of this dynamic. The ongoing insurgency in the region and the continued shrinking of Lake Chad (which is the main source of livelihood for millions of inhabitants) are causing a massive humanitarian crisis, intensifying the fragile security situation and increasing the cross-border displacement of populations. The Report of the Secretary-General points out: ‘Some 10.7 million people across the Lake Chad Basin region currently need humanitarian assistance, including 8.5 million in Nigeria.’ According to the report, 7.2 million people currently suffer severe food insecurity in the region, of which 4.7 million are located in the north-eastern Nigeria.
The interconnectedness of food security, natural resources, peace and conflict is not new to anyone familiar with fragile and conflict-affected states. The question is how to reverse this negative spiral. It is instrumental to focus on the questions of how interventions are interacting with other factors, what negative side effects may appear and how to reduce or, even better, prevent them. But, most of all, the reversal of this spiral involves developing a mindset that goes beyond ‘do no harm’ doctrines. In practice, that means focus and emphasis must be placed on opportunities and synergies to equally end hunger, reduce poverty, foster a healthy ecosystem, support sustainable natural resource management and, ultimately, to help sustain peace.
How can governments and international agencies better respond to food security in post-conflict settings?
Acknowledge complexity. Involved actors must acknowledge the complex underlying dimensions of the problem. While Guterres emphasizes conflict as a root cause, he downplayed the role of environmental and climate change—both in his current and previous assessments. His previous assessment of the humanitarian crisis around Lake Chad fell short of addressing and acknowledging the underlying environmental dynamics that significantly affect the water and food security of local communities in the region and make them vulnerable to insurgent recruitment.
Improve assessment capacity. There is a need for more integrated risk assessments that focus on climate and environmental factors, but also social, political and economics. For example, climate-related security risks are not just related to climate but are part of larger social–ecological processes and interactions that need to be better understood. The assessments must seek to understand the role of women, local contexts and the inclusion of marginalized groups, especially with regard to access to natural resources.
Be prepared. Both states and international state actors have to understand the state–society relationship—before, during and after crisis. One key way governments can increase their ability to cope with shock is to simply be prepared. This is of course difficult in conflict-affected states and, admittedly, often one of the actual sources of post-conflict fragility. Yet, supporting government efforts to focus on the state–society relationship is necessary, because a state that focuses on the delivery of services to those it is suppose to serve is a state that cares about its inhabitants. Service delivery is fundamental in two ways: one, it reduces vulnerability and increases resilience; and two, it reduces distrust towards the government. Without a certain level of trust between state and society, shocks cannot be adequately addressed.
Think holistically. Lastly, there is a tendency, especially among UN agencies—often due to their mandate—to treat issues such as food security and natural resources as technical issues in need of a technical solution. This approach is doomed to fail because, fundamentally, access to food, land and other natural resources—like the conflicts themselves—are deeply political processes. They need to be treated as such.
Unquestionably, within the past year with Guterres at the helm, space has opened within the UN system to more frequently discuss the questions of sustaining peace and conflict prevention. The strategies above are some examples that enable national and international actors to successfully get at the root causes of food insecurity in conflict-affected states. Each of these steps must explicitly include a focus on gender as a crucial, yet often neglected, dimension. Most importantly, in addition to understanding risk, there is a need to further shift the discourse of intervention programming and implementation towards opportunity. Will such an approach stop conflicts and prevent people from taking up arms? Absolutely not. But the evidence is clear that it will make it much harder for insurgent groups to mobilize people for their cause.
First published in SIPRI.org
Thanksgiving Also Means Giving Thanks for Our Planet
It is Thanksgiving holiday in the US. The Europeans do not celebrate Thanksgiving and the European Parliament has held an election. It has chosen former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen as the new President of the European Commission. Hailing from a political family of conservatives — her father narrowly lost a party leadership election to Franz Josef Strauss — she is the first woman to hold the EU’s top executive job.
Conservative or not, there is unanimity in the EU about climate change, and how the EU has to lead the transition to a healthier planet by planning the necessary upgrading of its social market economy.
If the Europeans are increasingly aware of the environmental challenges ahead, the UN Environment Programme has just issued its flagship Emissions Gap Report. As one might surmise, the ‘gap’ refers to the difference between what the world is doing to tackle climate change and what it needs to do to limit temperature increase to 1.5C. Our present ambitions of structural change from a fossil fuel economy is forecast in the report to lead to a catastrophic 3.2C rise.
Present California fires and coastal flooding of the eastern seaboard from the Carolinas down to Florida are just the top of the iceberg as are the European floods in Spain, Italy and France — and the temperature rise so far is a single degree Celsius.
The window to act is closing rapidly. As the UN report clarifies in stark terms, emissions will have to peak by 2020 to limit global warming to 1.5C without affecting economic growth. It turns out that of the 43 developed and emerging economies, all with the sole exception of Turkey will have peaked their emissions by 2020. Be 2030, 57 countries will have peaked. That is the good news.
By far the greatest emitters are China, the US, and then India and the EU. Together they account for 56 percent of greenhouse gasses emitted over the last decade. These therefore bear a heavy responsibility.
The bad news is that while these and other emitters have pledged to follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement — except for the US because Trump withdrew from it — it is not enough. According to the UN report, their efforts will still result in a 3.2C rise by century’s end to devastating effect.
It is logical then that efforts have to be intensified, and countries need to be more ambitious in their goals. A focus on innovation and domestic policies to encourage non-fossil fuel power generation would be clearly to their advantage. For example, energy produced from solar panels has soared from 50 Gigawatts in 2010 to 400 GW in 2015 with an expectation of 450+ GW by 2020.
The strong message of the report is for all sectors and their principals — national, state and local governments, mayors, corporations, their executives, civil society and civic leaders — to come together and act in concert if they are to avert a problem affecting our common home before it is too late. It is one way of giving thanks for what we have. The last five years have already been the warmest on record, the future can be expected to be worse if we do not act.
Venice Is Flooded: A Look at Our Coastal Future
Authors: Arshad M. Khan and Meena Miriam Yust
If humans have been lucky, basking in the comforting warmth of an inter-glacial period for the last 10,000 years, that luck may be about to turn. Rest assured we are not entering a glacial period. No, our quest for greater comfort has us pumping fossil fuel residues in the air—particularly CO2—warming the earth beyond its natural trajectory. One consequence is melting Arctic (especially Greenland) ice and coastal flooding.
Problematic as that might be, new research holds worse in store… much worse, for the Antarctic has not been a passive bystander. It melted when the north was taking a rest allowing no let up.
The previous glacial age lasted from 125,000 to 118,000 years ago. A paper published November 6, 2019 in Nature Communications (Vol. 10, Article # 5040) has found the Greenland ice sheet melt insufficient to explain the highs of the rise then. In fact, it was the Antarctic ice sheet, previously thought to be inconsequential, that was key. It turns out the Southern Ocean warmed first at the start of the inter-glacial, leading to a change in the circulation pattern of the oceans and to a warming of the northern polar areas to start the ice melt in Greenland.
Temperatures then were up to 1°C higher than now but the same has been estimated for us in the future. However, this time climate changes on earth have been accelerated by greenhouse gas emissions over the industrial period, resulting in more extreme climate changes than in the last inter-glacial.
The research has also revealed that ice melt caused a 10 meter sea level rise above the present level at a rate of 3 meters (about 10 feet) per century, a rate that is 10 times higher than the rise observed in the last 150 years. If 10 ft. per century has a remote feel, try a foot every 10 years!
This is far greater than current projections of sea level rise that anticipate an increase at the most to about 3 feet above 2000 levels by 2100. The predictions, however, do not account for an important natural outcome of ice sheet melt, that of ice cliff instability. The ice cliffs form as the warm water melts their ice under the water, eating away until the cliff shears off and collapses into the sea.
The collapse is a sudden and unpredictable addition to the gradual melt in the ocean. It also means that polar ice sheet melt can affect sea levels far more intensely than has been projected so far, and it could account at least in part for the much higher rise found by the researchers in the prior inter-glacial. Are we in for a surprise!
If incoming solar radiation was greater in the last inter-glacial because of the earth’s position relative to the sun, the CO2 levels were lower, at 280 parts per million as opposed to 410 plus today. Worse, in the former inter-glacial the two polar areas did not warm up simultaneously. Today’s intensive climate change is propelled by greenhouse gases, and the warming is bipolar with the ice melting in both polar regions at the same time.
Another paper also published in Nature Communications a week earlier (Vol. 10, Article # 4844 October 29, 2019) examines global vulnerability to coastal flooding from rising sea levels given new metrics for measuring land elevation. The model currently in use for this measurement, developed by NASA, has a 2 meter vertical bias. Using a new Coastal DEM (Digital Elevation Model) and a mean estimate of sea level rise this century, the authors estimate 190 million people live below projected high tide lines at present. This rises to 630 million by century’s end in the extreme case of high emissions. Increase the sea level rise to 3 meters (10 feet) projected in the other paper above and a billion people could be in jeopardy.
What can one expect? Well, the first signs of trouble will be when coastal flooding that used to happen once a decade becomes an annual event, or when unprecedented events occur. Venice is a current example. In a rare historic flood its iconic St. Mark’s Square is hip-deep in water. The church itself and its priceless frescoes could be in danger if the water rises further.
The increased coastal flooding will be gradual of course. Our children, their children, and so on down the line will be the real innocent victims of our legacy/profligacy.
Note: This article appeared originally on CommonDreams.org
Thirty years on, what is the Montreal Protocol doing to protect the ozone?
The Montreal Protocol to protect the Earth’s ozone layer is to date the only United Nations environmental agreement to be ratified by every country in the world. It is also one of the most successful. With the parties to the Protocol having phased out 98 per cent of their ozone-depleting substances, they saved an estimated two million people from skin cancer every year.
Following the thirty-first meeting of the parties in Rome during 4–8 November, Stephanie Haysmith, the communications officer for the Ozone Secretariat, explained why the Montreal Protocol has been so successful and what lies ahead for the treaty.
The 2019 ozone hole is the smallest on record since its discovery. How does the ozone repair and how long will it take?
The Montreal Protocol has been successful in reducing ozone-depleting substances and reactive chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere. As a result, the ozone layer is showing the first signs of recovery. It is expected that the ozone layer will return to pre-1980s levels by the middle of the century and the Antarctic ozone hole by around 2060s. This is because once released, ozone-depleting substances stay in the atmosphere for many years and continue to cause damage. The 2019 hole is indeed the smallest since recording of its size began in 1982 but the ozone is also influenced by temperature shifts and dynamics in the atmosphere through climate change. In 2019, the stratosphere was particularly warm during the Antarctic winter and spring.
The Kigali Amendment, which came into force January 2019, requires countries to limit hydrofluorocarbons in refrigerators and air-conditioners by more than 80 percent. Yet, there is a growing demand for cooling. How can the two needs be met?
While there is a growing global demand for cooling systems for personal well-being and in the commercial sector, improving energy efficiency with low or zero global-warming-potential will be needed to meet needs while minimizing adverse impacts on climate and environment. Research and development have kept pace: equipment design has changed and improved with the ozone-depleting substances phase-out.
At the Rome meeting, parties were made aware of an unexpected increase in global emissions of trichlorofluoromethane, or CFC-11. Why is that, and what is being planned to address it?
The issue of unexpected emissions of CFC-11 was brought to the attention of the parties in 2018. Global emissions of CFC-11 had increased in the period after 2012. This unexpected trend suggests that there is illegal production and consumption of CFC-11. The exact sources of these emissions have yet to be found. The parties take this very seriously and a decision was made at the MOP30 [30th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol] to cooperate in further scientific research. In addition, the parties will assess the mechanisms of monitoring for the Montreal Protocol and the Multilateral Fund.
What is meant by “a sustainable cold chain” and how does it reduce food loss?
A cold chain is a connected set of temperature-controlled facilities (pack houses, cold stores, refrigerated transportation, etc.) that ensures perishable foods maintain their freshness and quality while in transit. Access to cold chain allows local producers to link with high-value markets locally, nationally and internationally. By enabling perishable food commodities to be stored and transported in a temperature-controlled environment not only ensures quality and safety, but reduces overall food loss, while improving economic gains and increasing sustainability.
From an environmental perspective, it is important that increasing demand for cold chain is sustainable with increased use of green fuels, energy efficiency and low or zero global warming potential technologies.
What do you hope the Montreal Protocol will inspire?
The Montreal Protocol is one of the world’s most successful environmental treaties and since its adoption, it has encouraged countries to commit to phasing out the production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances. The parties to the Protocol, on realizing that the alternatives, known as hydrofluorocarbons, are potent greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, agreed to address this. After protracted discussions, in 2016 the parties adopted the Kigali Amendment. The global partnership, stakeholder involvement and overall commitment of the countries lent to the success of the ozone protection regime. A successful hydrofluorocarbon phasedown is expected to avoid up to 0.4°C of global temperature rise by 2100, while continuing to protect the ozone layer.
The Secret Orchard
She wants diamonds, to live in a mansion (she thinks that’s the perfect life), to be the hostess of parties,...
U.S. Policy on Zimbabwe Leaves Door Open for China
The clearest image yet of the failure of United States’ policy towards Zimbabwe was on display last week when President...
Ending the Gulf crisis: Natural gas frames future Gulf relations
Natural gas could well emerge as the litmus test of how relations among the Gulf’s energy-rich monarchies evolve if and...
Lebanon and Sri Lanka: An Extraordinary Relationship and a Bright Future
Since the Silk Road, Arabs turned to Asian countries, and this was the reason for the spread of Arab civilization...
Burkina Faso: AfDB approves €48,82 million for Desert to Power Yeleen programme
The Board of Directors of the Bank has approved a €48,82 million loan to the Government of Burkina Faso for...
A Reflection on the 2019 White Paper on Vietnamese National Defense
Authors: Do Quynh Anh & Yang Yizhong Among more than one dozen of the neighbor states of China, Vietnam is...
The Role of Political Psychology in Diplomacy
Political psychology originated from France, which was first introduced by the ethnologist Adolph Bastian in his book called “Man in...
Defense3 days ago
India and the SCO: A Vision for Expanding New Delhi’s Engagement
Europe3 days ago
Russia–EU Relations in 2020: Opportunities, Limitations and Possible Trends
Russia2 days ago
Russia, India, Pakistan: A “love triangle”
Middle East2 days ago
U.S. Foreign Policy Threats to Israel’s National Security: Strategic Imperatives for Jerusalem
Defense3 days ago
Why Germany turned its back on parallel coalitions in Strait of Hormuz
Defense2 days ago
Why Sri Lanka needs a “National Securitism” oriented National Security Policy?
Americas2 days ago
Why finance is at the heart of Chile’s crisis
Reports2 days ago
Weak Outlook in GCC Due to Muted Oil Prices & Global Trends